Abortion: Where should we draw the line?

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Firstly, I don't think human life starts at conception nor at birth.

I believe abortion should be allowed as women should not be forced to have a child when they don't want to for physical, emotional or financal reasons. And if it wasn't legal women would be forced seek unregulated dangerous abortions.

However most countries there is a limit to when they can be performed, in the UK it's 24 weeks I think it's based on the minimum amount of time the fetus has to be in womb before it could survive outside.

Yet with medical technology advancing should that limit be decreased to reflect this? Maybe at some point the fetus could be removed at any point in the pregnancy and developed in an artificial 'womb'. But with populations increasing as it is, with no abortions is it possible to feed, clothe and find parents for all these children?

Maybe the limit should be based on when the fetus can feel pain or brain development has reached a certain point. But what about women who don't realise they are pregnant until after this date should they be forced to carry the fetus to term?

How does medical community balance the 'life' of the fetus and the mother as the mother can survive without the fetus but not the other way round?

Can we say fetus is not a human life until it is born? How can we say there is an objective developmental difference between a 1 day old baby and a fetus to be born tomorrow?

Some think the only justifiable abortions are for medical reasons and financial considerations cannot be taken into account. But what about rape?

The reason why I started this thread was because I didn't think the distinction between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' tells you much.

What are everyones thoughts? Have you got any answers to my questions?

Note: Although this thread is open to all views on abortion it is primarily a discussion around what, if any, limits to abortion there should be.

[SoulReaver]

this is a nice, civilized thread

[DigiFluid]

I work with some people well into their 40s who would be vastly improved by post-natal abortion.

[escyos]

I think the same argument should be used for the drinking age in australia - if your 18 your allowed to fight for your country, so you should be allowed to drink.

If your allowed to breathe, then you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want.

The whole "abortion is wrong" thing is merely an interpretation from religious texts and religion should never be part of politics or law, at least not for rational people.

[The Flyattractor]

So if life dosen't start at "birth" when does it?
When your 21?

[Dixie_Vampiress]

It should be outlawed completely. Human life is human life, no matter how small or developed. There is no situation in which taking the life of a child is justified.

Women are not "forced", they chose to have sex, knowing the consequences! They should have thought about it before taking that step. The baby should not have to pay for her stupidity.

As for rape, true this is not the woman's fault, but yet again the baby should not have to pay for some man's wrongdoing.

Bottomline: Murder is wrong. Life begins at conception. And adoption is the MUCH, MUCH better alternative.

[SoulReaver]

btw wouldn't this kinda debate belong to the religion thread?

[The Flyattractor]

No. This is a debate about PURE SCIENCE!

So it probaby belongs in the fan fiction forum.

[mad_gater]

I think the same argument should be used for the drinking age in australia - if your 18 your allowed to fight for your country, so you should be allowed to drink.

If your allowed to breathe, then you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want.

The whole "abortion is wrong" thing is merely an interpretation from religious texts and religion should never be part of politics or law, at least not for rational people.

I'll agree with you about drinking age...if at 18 one is considered a consenting adult who can fight for country, then he should damn well be considered old enough to drink, in moderation of course

[SoulReaver]

No. This is a debate about PURE SCIENCE!

but this is about reproductive rights - so the correct term would be "dirty science"

[mad_gater]

Furthermore Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a blatant supporter of eugenics, 'nuff said I think.......

then there's the fact that life does not begin when man says it begins, life begins when nature says it begins and in us humans it begins with the life-transmitting act. The very act of conjugal love between husband and wife, when fruitful, transmits life. It is not transmitted by the will of mere men.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

It should be outlawed completely. Human life is human life, no matter how small or developed. There is no situation in which taking the life of a child is justified.

Women are not "forced", they chose to have sex, knowing the consequences! They should have thought about it before taking that step. The baby should not have to pay for her stupidity.

As for rape, true this is not the woman's fault, but yet again the baby should not have to pay for some man's wrongdoing.

Bottomline: Murder is wrong. Life begins at conception. And adoption is the MUCH, MUCH better alternative.

What about abortion for medical reasons?

[The Flyattractor]

but this is about reproductive rights - so the correct term would be "dirty science"

Thats only true if your practising your ....*science* behind the dumpster of a 7-11.

[Kab]

Firstly, I don't think human life starts at birth.

I'm gonna assume that's a typo..

It should be outlawed completely. Human life is human life, no matter how small or developed. There is no situation in which taking the life of a child is justified.

Women are not "forced", they chose to have sex, knowing the consequences! They should have thought about it before taking that step. The baby should not have to pay for her stupidity.

As for rape, true this is not the woman's fault, but yet again the baby should not have to pay for some man's wrongdoing.

Bottomline: Murder is wrong. Life begins at conception. And adoption is the MUCH, MUCH better alternative.

A fetus is just an empty husk of organic material with no consciusness at all, human life begins when the brain develops and the child is able to think "Why am I here?", before that it's an animal and before that it's the husk I mentioned before.

Potential to become life does not = Life. Otherwise every man is a mass murderer, and every woman has stood by while countless children leak out of them. (So to speak)

Adoption when the child pops out of someone afte 9 grueling months and eating for two is not the best option.

btw wouldn't this kinda debate belong to the religion thread?

It does indeed, since the only reason there is a dicussion to be had is because of religion.

Furthermore Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a blatant supporter of eugenics, 'nuff said I think.......

then there's the fact that life does not begin when man says it begins, life begins when nature says it begins and in us humans it begins with the life-transmitting act. The very act of conjugal love between husband and wife, when fruitful, transmits life. It is not transmitted by the will of mere men.

I completely agree, life does being when nature determines it does.
On the other hand, you just said that life does not begin when man says it begins, and then you said when it begins.

[fems]

It should be outlawed completely. Human life is human life, no matter how small or developed. There is no situation in which taking the life of a child is justified.

Women are not "forced", they chose to have sex, knowing the consequences! They should have thought about it before taking that step. The baby should not have to pay for her stupidity.

As for rape, true this is not the woman's fault, but yet again the baby should not have to pay for some man's wrongdoing.

Bottomline: Murder is wrong. Life begins at conception. And adoption is the MUCH, MUCH better alternative.

Right, just let the woman pay for the man's wrongdoing, eh? I mean, she has already been traumatized and violated by having a foreign object forced into her body at least once, so why not force her to carry and nurture another for at least nine months? Then she'll have to go through childbirth, which can be traumatizing in its own especially if she's going to give up the child she never asked for. Not to mention that there are still many complications that can arise during childbirth, including death.

And I'm not even gonna get into the consequences for the emotional state of a rape victim who's forced into carrying her rapist's child and giving birth to it, only to end up giving it away or is forced to raise it herself, meaning she'll have a constant reminder in her life (although I'm sure the experience itself is printed into her mind too) of the attack. I'm sure the child itself will be thrilled to know their father raped their mother as well; that they've been given up for adoption because the mother couldn't cope with what happened to her or that they're a constant reminder (and maybe even a source of resentment and hatred) to their mother for what's probably the most traumatic experience of her life.